The King of Pop: The Case Against Sudden Death Pt. II

First off, this blog is speculative. It provides one reasoning path for the "facts" publicly reported. Obviously other paths exist and other information yet to be revealed could refute some or all of the reasoning here. I don't know anyone connected with this and I only know what I read in the newspaper.

I believe that, for a final time, Mr. Jackson was a victim of Rollo Tomasi's need to use him for his/her/their gain.

If you don't know who Rollo Tomasi is click here

Let's recap my reasoning so far - keeping in mind that this is all hypothetical -

• Michael Jackson entered into an agreement to do 50 concerts after Rollo Tomasi et al ponied up at least $400M to "acquire" an interest in his assets - including Neverland Ranch (confirmed yesterday) and possibly including his song catalog.
• Michael Jackson struggled with a variety of ailments - physical, mental, spiritual and imagined - the knowledge of which almost torpedoed the concerts. That is, until Rollo Tomasi et al found a doctor to certify to his health and an insurance company willing to accept that doctor's results.
• Michael Jackson was, by some reports, already showing signs of fatigue and reporting that he didn't feel well. A nurse recently reported being contacted by Mr. Jackson and begging for medication while complaining of odd sensations on opposite sides of his body.
  
• Because of the way completion insurance often works in the entertainment industry, there existed a real possibility that if Michael Jackson didn't complete the 50 concerts, Rollo Tomasi et al would not recoup all of their investment (not to mention the $400M in "debt" acquisition).
• With control of Michael Jackson's assets (via the $400M) Rollo Tomasi et al could create a lucrative business (think "Graceland Inc.") from the assets they would control - but only if Michael Jackson were dead. With Michael Jackson alive, the assets don't have the same tourist appeal and Rollo Tomasi et al don't have unchallenged decision-making authority.
  
• For this reason, I assert that Michael Jackson was worth more dead than alive.

Consider this: The concert series would bring Mr. Jackson $100M and Rollo Tomasi et al optimistically 2x - 3x times their investment of $400M. After the concert series and alive, neither Mr. Jackson not Rollo Tomasi et al would have complete control over Neverland and the other assets secured by the $400M.

In my last blog I posed the question:

How did a 50-year old man reported to have lupus, vitiligo, debilitating spinal pain and a known medical dependence on opiates get a medical clearance to perform those 50 concerts?...

It's intriguing to ponder. How does a man reportedly in that kind of shape:

• Get a medical clearance from an insurance company in this economy? I mean, c'mon. Post-Katrina insurance companies have gotten mighty stingy with policies in general and risky policies specifically. To get someone with Mr. Jackson's public medical information insured must have cost a bloody fortune. Hmmm... more money from the backers...
• Continue to participate in physically grueling rehearsals at 50 years old? People associated with the show when initially interviewed (I suspect before the gag order went out) say it was a spectacular and physically demanding show. Even with lip-syncing the dancing would wear a 20-30 year old out.

Now consider these questions:

• Why was a cardiologist selected? By all the published reports I've seen, Mr. Jackson suffered from vitiligo - the disease which sapped his coloring - and from lupus. It would be reasonable to think they might have found an expert in auto-immune diseases to attend to him. The selection of a cardiologist raises several more questions.
• If, as the Dr. Rollo Tomasi says, he prescribed NO opiates, where did the prescriptions confiscated by the police come from? Again, initial published reports stated that someone (unfortunately unidentified) had "recently" witnessed Dr. Tomasi giving Mr. Jackson a shot. A shot of what???
• And what about the phone call to the nurse? Why would Michael Jackson call the nurse to report the odd sensations in his body. He was either (a) looking for opiates/opioids which means the good Dr. Tomasi was letting him go through opiate withdrawl, or (b) his body was indeed breaking down and the good Dr. Tomasi wasn't engaged in diagnosing the problem.
  

Reviewing the published reports leaves me with some troubling thoughts:

1. Michael Jackson complained TWICE in 48-72 hours of not feeling well. If Dr. Tomasi was truly being paid to keep the backers' $400-million-dollar man alive, why didn't Dr. Tomasi admit him to the hospital? There's no show without Michael Jackson; if I were in the investor's position and he complained of broken toe nail, I'd have had him at UCLA before his feet touched the ground. I'd have had him surrounded by sterile materials. I'd have protected my investment. Especially since I'm paying the doctor!
2. During the 911 call the layman who calls 911 relates all of the information. Not once did I hear Dr. Tomasi relay any information to the paramedics. Dr. Tomasi doesn't mention if there was a portable defibulator in the house or whether it's been used. Not even what medications might have been administered to revive Mr. Jackson. There's no verbal interaction to the paramedics. I know Dr. Tomasi was busy with CPR but I would think that he might want to make sure what equipment would be in the ambulance.
3. Dr. Tomasi disappeared for a goodly amount of time at some point after Mr. Jackson arrived at the hospital. For me, the proof was the need by the LAPD to impound Dr. Tomasi's car (well, really, his sister's car). That means they couldn't get the keys. Why would Dr. Tomasi, whose sole job is to keep Mr. Jackson alive, be difficult to locate in the hospital he delivered Mr. Jackson to?
4. There are many reports, most without citing the primary source, concerning Mr. Jackson's use of prescription opiates for pain. Yet in the statement released by Dr. Tomasi, he emphatically denies providing any opiates to Mr. Jackson. So during a time when Mr. Jackson and his body were under incredible stress - his financial empire now belonged (mostly) to his investors (the other Tomasi's), he needed to get into shape to do 50 high-energy comeback concerts, and he was simultaneously in conditioning training AND rehearsing the concert dance routines - Dr. Tomasi maintains that NO opiates were necessary to maintain Mr. Jackson's ability to move and function without pain.

Of the items in the list above, Items #4 and #1 bother me the most. Here's why:

Item #4 flies in the face of medical knowledge about opiates/opioids.

About Demerol Inj, WebMD says:

"...acts on certain centers in the brain to give you pain relief. This medication is a narcotic pain reliever similar to morphine."

"Repeated or high doses may cause drug levels to build up in the body and cause serious side effects such as seizures and shaking."

"Tell your doctor immediately if any of these unlikely but serious side effects occur: slow/shallow breathing, fainting, slow/irregular/fast heartbeat, mental/mood changes (e.g., confusion, hallucinations, nervousness), numbness, shakiness (tremors), trouble urinating." - CNN originally reported that witnesses reported seeing Mr. Jackson with these symptoms during the previous 48-72 hours.

Note the second quote. Repeated use increases the dosage needed for relief over time. In 2005 Michael Jackson reported to court in pajamas because of debilitating pain. Deepak Chopra maintains publicly that Mr. Jackson sought these same opiates post-trial from him and he turned him down. Headline News and Fox News reported that Mr. Jackson was sued for over $100K in prescriptions not paid for - almost all for opiates. Yet, Michael Jackson's personal physician for his final comeback tour never found it necessary to prescribe an opiate/opioid for pain.

Uh, huh. That's interesting...

Moving on, I found myself dwelling on the report that Mr. Jackson also took Zoloft and Xanax in the fairly recent past. Zoloft is an anti-depressant. Xanax is an anti-anxiety medication. Note WebMD's cautions regarding opiate use:

Opioids can also be life threatening. When they are taken with substances that depress the central nervous system -- including alcohol, barbiturates, or benzodiazepines such as Xanax or Valium -- there is a greatly increased risk of respiratory depression, even death.

Gee, I wonder if this is why Mr. Jackson suddenly stopped receiving opiates under the care of Dr. Tomasi - the knowledge that opiates and Xanax could be lethal. If I'd been injecting Demerol or providing OxyContin - the other opioid of choice - to my only patient I wouldn't want to mention it either.

But don't take my word for it - here's WebMD's info:

Opiods
Xanax

And that's why Item #1 chaps me raw - multiple reports stated Mr. Jackson complained of not feeling well and seemed to have the shakes. Why wasn't he transported - possibly involuntarily - to the hospital? Let's look at some possible reasons the doctor might give:

1. Mr. Jackson didn't want to go. Michael Jackson was 120 pounds soaking wet and sick to boot. What's he going to do - beat Dr. Tomasi up? Moonwalk over him? C'mon, gimme a break. It's not like he could have fired Dr. Tomasi for taking him to the hospital because Dr. Tomasi worked for the investors, not for Mr. Jackson.
   
2. Mr. Jackson didn't seem very ill. A very high-strung and fragile 50-year old man under tremendous stress who's working out AND rehearsing for a critical comeback show tells you he doesn't feel well and Dr. Tomasi assumes it isn't serious enough to check out in the hospital for a day. Yeah, right. No need to protect that $400M+ investment.

So why didn't Mr. Jackson end up in the hospital? Why wasn't more concern shown for his complaint of feeling less than well?

Because aggressive care might have thwarted the plan to improve someone's odds of making a lot of money.

In my next blog I'll layout the plan and a possible timeline to make someone very, very rich. Anyone care to find out how to get Graceland West with merchandising for $400M+?...

The King of Pop: The Case Against Sudden Death Pt. I

First off, this blog is speculative. It provides one reasoning path for the "facts" publicly reported. Obviously other paths exist and other information yet to be revealed could refute some or all of the reasoning here. I don't know anyone connected with this and I only know what I read in the newspaper.

Secondly, I'm not a star-struck, grief-stricken Michael Jackson devotee. While I continue to believe that his talent eclipses that of even the Beatles when performance is factored in, I'm not worshiping at any human altar.

I do believe that Mr. Jackson sought treatment for pain - physical, mental, spiritual and imaginary - in opiates.

But I do NOT believe opiates killed him. I believe humans did: humans who came to the realization that Michael Jackson would be more profitable, more manageable and more iconic dead than alive.

I believe that, for a final time, Mr. Jackson was a victim of Rollo Tomasi's need to use him for his/her/their gain.

If you're not sure who Rollo Tomasi is, click here.

For those who know that Elvis and Marilyn Monroe remain more profitable than many living artists this isn't hard to believe. For the others, let me express a few "advantages" of a dead icon:

[An Aside: The word "facts" is quoted to reflect the iffy nature of the reporting to-date. Reporters cannot yet determine who is telling them the truth, and more importantly, who is not. So all facts are taken with a grain of alcohol here.]

1. Living icons eventually lose their star power to age - aging bodies, aging talent, aging styles and aging return on investments. Why? Because everyone "waits" for the next great "thing" from them. And then they feel free to pass judgment and NOT pass money. With a dead icon, the only "next" is a rehash of before redone to make the public believe it's "newly discovered" or something "missing from their collection". Dead icons live forever ageless and timeless.
2. Living icons expect to be paid - particularly if their comeback is successful. Just think about Disney's live film comedy business plan. Find actors whose most recent films haven't kept them firmly on the A-list, offer them less than should really be paid (thus taking advantage of their current value to Disney's benefit) then watch the bucks roll in. Dead icons don't get paid; in fact, they often leave such complicated circumstances that the family is happy for anything.
3. Living icons can sue; so far none of the dead icons have done so. Want to make an artist really angry? Let them believe that promoters and agents and the like are making more from their talent than they deserve. I would speculate that nothing scares a handler/financial backer more than investing tons of money on a risky comeback, to have the comeback succeed and then to have to fight the comeback artist about who gets how much. Falling back on contracts doesn't work - study the lawsuits filed and eventually won by Little Richard. Juries generally have more fans than lawyers on them.
4. Living icons get embarrassed - and ticked off - about tasteless merchandising. Scratch your head and think about all the items you've seen with Marilyn Monroe on them. Some of them were pretty...tasteless? If Marilyn were alive (or had ever had kids who would be alive) do you think some of that would have been licensed and produced? If it had been produced, do you hesitate to believe that Marilyn wouldn't have implemented Item 3 in my list?
5. Living icons are somewhat limited by, and insist on controlling, their...physical existence. Remember when John Wayne kept appearing in commercials via the wonders of digital technology? Were he alive today, I'm betting he wouldn't do those commercials or allow them to be done unless he was dead broke, or just dead. For the most part, dead icons don't seem to mind being used for every purpose digital technology and marketeers can devise.

You see my point. From a risk mitigation standpoint there's a lot to gain by dealing only in dead icons - particularly those whose wills don't tie up control and licensing of their images, voices, likenesses (which aren't the same legally as images, I'm told), etc. How many of those wills really anticipated the personal and professional technology and Internet as threats to their estates?

So let's refocus on my assertion that The King of Pop provided greater return on investment dead than alive. A summary of the "facts" related to the financials of his comeback as reported by several news agencies:

1. Mr. Jackson's comeback was financed by at least two individuals.
2. The financial backers, alias Rollo Tomasi and friend, had invested a minimum of $400M US - the amount to deal with a substantial portion of Mr. Jackson's debt/commitments.
3. Mr. Jackson stood to make around $100M US - not enough to cover the $400M US already "invested" in his debt.
4. Some number of the venues on the comeback tour were owned/controlled by Rollo Tomasi or other backers.
   

The $400M is significant because it leads to two important considerations:

1. No matter how wildly successful the comeback, Michael Jackson would likely not regain control of most of his assets
2. These assets seem to include his Neverland Ranch and some portion of his song catalog - possibly including the Beatles catalog if it hasn't already been liquidated

Hmmm...

If my speculation is correct, Michael Jackson would end his comeback/final tour without regaining his house, his property or potentially the rights to use his own music. I'd say that's something to sue and become petulant over.

Imagine, if you will, that Mr. Jackson actually completed all 50 concerts (which I don't believe his health would have allowed - but that's another blog). At the tour's successful end Rollo Tomasi et al would have:

1. Whatever their profit was from the concert dates
2. Whatever their merchandising profit was from the programs, t-shirts, etc.
3. Whatever assets Mr. Jackson lost to their $400M

So what would Mr. Jackson have? $100M US. That's a LOT of $$$ and nothing to sneeze about. But even I would ponder the unevenness of the result. I know it's high finance, but to me, this looks like Little Richard all over again.

Now add in three small "facts" reported by multiple news agencies (if they can be believed):

1. Mr. Jackson had his tour delayed repeatedly, more than once the reason stated was the backers' inability to get insurance on him against the chance of NOT completing the tour
2. The backers finally found an insurance company and a doctor to certify him
3. Rollo Tomasi et al were instrumental in finding the doctor who attended Mr. Jackson and was present at his death
   

Here's how I've been told this works: The insurer charges a premium against the possibility that the artist can't complete the tour. But here's what I didn't know - the more dates completed on the tour the less the policy pays. Some common ones pay $0 once the tour is 2/3 to 3/4 complete.

So here's the dilemma - Rollo Tomasi et al controlling effectively all of the "valuable" parts of Michael Jackson's career - his iconic home, his physical property for the most part, whatever remaining debt he owed to whomever and quite probably his song catalog - have to get this aging, medication-dependent pop star through 50 dates alive and with sufficient appeal to see a return on the $400M they just invested in his debts (not counting what it cost to stage the tour).

Would you make this investment under these circumstances? Probably not, unless you had a plan B, right?

Well logic says that the most likely plan B's include:

1. Reduce costs - hard to do if Mr. Jackson's spending habits were accurately portrayed
   
2. Find a way to increase profit to the Rollo Tomasi et al while reducing it elsewhere - again, there's that petulant-star-won't-sing and keeps-suing-the-backers thing
3. "Lay off" some of the cost (and therefore the risk) to other investors - again, would YOU take this investment without some kind of ace in the hole?
4. Find a way to cancel the tour but keep the insurance money - yes, I know; I'm possibly talking about insurance fraud. I'm sure no business person has ever used fraud to save their business or themselves or to profit unreasonably from a bad investment, right?
   
5. Find a way to...remove Mr. Jackson. Permanently.

With control over Mr. Jackson's assets and no Mr. Jackson to complain, Rollo Tomasi et al could take a page from Priscilla Presley's strategic business plan and turn Neverland Ranch into Graceland West Coast location.

When the former Mrs. Presley inherited Graceland, The King's finances were in shambles. Documents dating from the period shortly after Elvis' death indicate she stood to lose Graceland and to lose control over The King's song catalog. Through hard work and gritty determination she turned what assets she had into a multi-MILLION dollar enterprise for a dead icon.

Let me repeat that: a multi-MILLION dollar enterprise for a DEAD icon.

So what would Rollo Tomasi need to execute a revised version of this business plan?

1. Mr. Jackson - dead.
2. Control over the Neverland Ranch so that it could be made into a museum like Graceland. Note I didn't say ownership. Rollo Tomasi might only need to have the strongest financial claim when the estate is settled, not ownership. In fact, having a strong but partial claim could be even more beneficial. It would allow Rollo Tomasi to make the argument that letting them run a tribute museum is the only means to satisfy all of the financial claims against the estate.
3. A deal to keep the family from making it messy. So far this hasn't surfaced; but the family could find themselves having to go against their own desires to provide money for Mr. Jackson's children.
4. The catalog.

The catalog - whose status ownership-wise I haven't heard about - is key. With the catalog, the new Neverland Museum could actually publish to souvenirs CDs, mp3's etc. right from the museum gift store(s) (brick&mortar and online). The catalog allows them to bypass the original record company (and their distribution and publishing fees) and get more profit directly from consumers - it cuts out the middle men (or women, as this is the 21st century). It clinches the museum as a money-maker in the same way the Elvis catalog does.

Imagine a Neverland Museum iTunes store; it's the gift that keeps on giving.

All this only works if Mr. Jackson is dead, preferably before touring increases the cash leaving the building.

In my next blog I'll explain why the events surrounding Mr. Jackson's medical care during the 48-72 hours before his death concern me greatly. How did a 50-year old man reported to have lupus, vitiligo, debilitating spinal pain and a known medical dependence on opiates get a medical clearance to perform those 50 concerts?...

Introducing: Rollo Tomasi (forgive my spelling...)

Who is Rollo Tomasi and Why do I chase him/her/it?

I admit that my OCD triggered early and I work little if at all to control it. My three-letter mental companion allows me to be very good at what I do.

Rollo Tomasi set my OCD off decades ago. Rollo Tomasi determined the course of my life, motivated me to create this blog and drives my daily choices .

You see, Rollo Tomasi always, always, always gets away with "it" - whatever "it" is.

Big or Small. Victimless or Genocidal. Small Potatoes or Irreplaceable Items. Rollo Tomasi has perfected the art of never paying for his/her/"its" crimes.

Of course, Rollo Tomasi doesn't actually exist.
I mean, I can't post a picture because Rollo Tomasi is fictional. I'm obsessive, not crazy.

You see my problem, right?

It's like this:

I was the kid who could always see through the school yard schemes and politics but could never (a) perpetrate the really cool frauds and crimes or (b) convince the "proper authorities" - namely teachers and/or administrators - that something fishy was going on.

Here I was in the middle of the greatest crime wave my 7-8-9-10-11-12-13-14-15 year old selves had ever seen, and I couldn't bust a vase on a teacher's desk. Or if a vase DID get busted, I'd get blamed, not the true perp. (I know how Candace feels in the TV animated series "Phineas & Ferb" - except I'm animated in a very different manner).

And that's where it starts. The knowing glances from perps running free, all angelic faces and "Bad Seed" smiles. The waves of heat coming off my head as the guilty paraded in front of me every day. So much black and white and yet all the authorities saw was grey - and they saw that badly.

[An aside: I will use many movie analogies in my blogs. Leave a comment if you don't get them.]

Madness, at least the functional kind, doesn't just descend on the ordered mind. It creeps through the door left open when logic and reason meet up with the real world. At least that was my experience. Madness told me two very valuable things:

1. The perps weren't good, they just understood how to confuse the (so-called) thinking of the authorities. They knew the authorities were either over-worked or lazy. Either behavior when investigating a crime leads away from solving it.
2. If I hustled, analyzed, researched and processed enough information while honing my analysis skills, I could set these perps up, get them either busted - or worse, revenged upon - and not leave a single hair fiber behind leading to me. An ordered and obsessive mind could beat them.

I admit this probably seems crazy, but consider how many times you lost recess, had to stay after, got detention, had to take a note home, missed lunch, got beaten up, lost privileges, got disciplined, coughed up your milk/lunch/snack money involuntarily, got bullied, got dissed, got suspended or got expelled because someone else got away with it.

For that matter, think about Wall Street CEOs and U.S. mortgage brokers over the last 5 years.

Frankly, I decided Madam Justice was WAAAY too blind for me. So I started "helping" her tip the scales back to their statistical balance.

I was an adult before I knew my perp's name.

I attended (in a theater no less, something I seldom do) a movie called "L.A. Confidential". It's a quadruple-cross kind of film noir detective tale set in the really scary history of the LAPD. Has everything: prostitution, cover-ups, racism, domestic abuse, cronyism and nepotism, dirty cops. You get it - it was quite realistic and historically accurate.

When the two "heroes" - and in this movie that's a hard word to use - finally team up, one eloquently states his motivation for solving the case: Rollo Tomasi - a moniker his policeman-father gave to the guy who gets away with it. Stopping Rollo Tomasi became the driving motivation for the remainder of the film (which I quite enjoyed, by the way).

FINALLY! Eureka!

Life for me tends to imitate art. I knew my theories were right because there vindication sat riding several Oscar nominations across the planet. The guy, THAT guy, the morally-bankrupt, good-looking sneak thief that muscled/charmed/bribed/escaped out of every crime actually existed and now I had a name.

Personification of that nameless, unrelenting irritant that's driven your behavior for nearly a lifetime can be very liberating. I certainly felt liberated and gladly recommitted myself to Rollo Tomasi's pursuit.

This blog will capture information about my suspicions and concerns when the Blind Lady called Justice is having eye trouble. I do this because Rollo Tomasi chaps me raw where it ain't comfortable to sit. So since I'm up anyway, might as well be productive.

In my next blog(s) (as I don't know how many it will take) I'll begin to lay out the case concerning the unfortunate demise of the "King of Pop", Michael Jackson. I'm not so sure his sudden departure wasn't...planned...